Eurobowl Future Rules (from 2014)

[sann0638]

@Dries, an unscrupulous captain might try and dissuade Jonny Goblin-player from coming if they were going to be the only Europen representative?

[Turin]

Would the system with points from the Eur'open not favour the host?
There have been more locals in the Eur'open then from any other country.

This year the nation with most player in the tournaments (bowl and open) was Italy (in the open there were 5 Italian and 4 Austrian players, the freebooters included one Austrian and several Italians). We had some last minute canceallations (work and family related) and a date collision with a warhammer tournament in another part of the country (the players there didn't want to move their date although the tournament hadn't even been announced when we invited them).

However, there will never be an even number of player across the attending countries and I'm pretty sure that 2014 there will be a whole bunch of Belgian and Dutch players attending, probably many from UK as well.

[Strider84]

I think a Swiss guy has to point out some impacts of the Swiss system:

If you seed by ranking from the last year, the second round will be just as random as the first round would be without seeding. whoever of the lower teams gets a bit lucky and wins against another lower opponent 7:2 will then be top seeded for the first round, and will get to play some of the stronger teams until they have lost their advantage again.

So the only way to really make the swiss system work if a high win doesn't give you more points then a close win. Which would be the approach with the 1000 500 0. then again some argue that a 6:2 win between two top nations should be rewarded, which can only really be done by using opponent scores as a first tie breaker.

From my point of view this is the only way where a team can then say, but we played against all the top nations and actually get rewarded for it.

Of course the question is if a close win over all opponents is actually better then close losses and 4 big wins, because if you look at the individual performance the team has won more single games.

I personally like the fact that every point or half a point you can achieve directly factors into the main ranking criteria.

We would propabaly have to look at some stats and I'm sure all top 5 teams would find a scoring way / tiebreaker that will put them into first place...

It's a game of Luck and the Draw is a big part of it, not just against what team, but also the racial matchups and then the dice anyways. I liked the current scoring system, it was close until the end, which for sure is what is wanted the most. Having a game on table 3 that can still win it if everything runs for them makes for sure more spectacle then if the winner is already decidd on round 5...

If you want to do seeding then you need to play a group Stage with 4 groups of x teams and then play KO for the next 3 rounds

[Candlejack]

Strider has some points that i strongly agree with. For me it is important that every game counts and not just as some kind of tie breaker. If a nation manages some dominating wins then it is justified they are way ahead.

If you regard a nation like a single player and mainly count nation wins the chance is much higher the last running games (even on the top tables) just make no difference. Of course this can happen as well with the current scoring system but not as likely.

Also it would mean that to win the tournament a team needs only 5-6 very good players and the rest can lose all their games while other teams with 7 or 8 top players that win more games in total could only come second.

It is a fact that there is no perfect system that nobody will ever object to so I think we should stop trying to "fix" it by complicating it, usually simple solution are the best. After all it is still only a game and like e.g. the football world cup or champions league sometimes a team gets an advantage with an easy group/draw. Well, tough luck. Next time it is the other way round.

I don't say we should not think about ways to improve stuff or try something new, but at first we have to figure out what we want to achieve. And from my perspective here we are looking for a way to find the nation that can currently field the best group of 8 coaches, ergo the current system is pretty good. I would even like to drop that silly bonus point for this purpose but that one does not bother me too much.

[Tripleskull]

Hi Candlejack and everyone else.

I urge you to go through the arguments and think this issue through. Even if you find that, I come off as some arrogant better knowing bastard. I think many people have already made up their minds before they start analyzing the problem and I have been in favor of the current system before but now I cannot find a single valid argument for it. Last year before organizing in Copenhagen we considered it and decided not to propose a change for the exact reasons people mention.

Strider has some points that i strongly agree with. For me it is important that every game counts and not just as some kind of tie breaker. If a nation manages some dominating wins then it is justified they are way ahead.

This is surely the main argument for the current system, but it is based on the false premesis, that the impact of the single game is significantly smaler with the proposed change. The individual games will surely have impact on placement every, so you will almost newer be in a situation where you know that your game will make no difference in the standing. So every game will matter alot - maybe marginally less but only very marginally. Calling it, just some kind of tiebreaker is misleading because it will be a very important tiebreaker given the swiss draw system.

If you regard a nation like a single player and mainly count nation wins the chance is much higher the last running games (even on the top tables) just make no difference. Of course this can happen as well with the current scoring system but not as likely.

I am not going to do the math right now since I am still kind of hung over but I believe you are wrong. I am pretty sure the likelihood of the top table making no difference is very, very slim with swiss draw and the number of team and round that are likely.

Also it would mean that to win the tournament a team needs only 5-6 very good players and the rest can lose all their games while other teams with 7 or 8 top players that win more games in total could only come second.

Is this in itself a bad thing? I am not convinced it is. It would balance things out between nations. I would think that was a benefit. That being said I don’t find the argument valid. 5 good players and 3 bad ones would very likely lose at least one game in the tournament. Any good player knows that it’s possible to lose on any given Sunday even being very superior.

It is a fact that there is no perfect system that nobody will ever object to so I think we should stop trying to "fix" it by complicating it, usually simple solution are the best. After all it is still only a game and like e.g. the football world cup or champions league sometimes a team gets an advantage with an easy group/draw. Well, tough luck. Next time it is the other way round.

Maybe there is no perfect system? However, this is no merit for arguing that no system being better than another is. Also the current system is not the simple one. The proposed system is in fact the simple one with the technicality of counting the primary score in thousands and the tiebreaker points in ones. You could spit those up and the proposed system would win all they long in the argument of simplicity.

With an analogy to a football world cup you really can put the flaw of the current system into the light. Say Brazil gets an easy draw. They win the group and gets +12 on goals. What we are going is analogous to counting those goals like points for the next rounds.

I don't say we should not think about ways to improve stuff or try something new, but at first we have to figure out what we want to achieve. And from my perspective here we are looking for a way to find the nation that can currently field the best group of 8 coaches, ergo the current system is pretty good. I would even like to drop that silly bonus point for this purpose but that one does not bother me too much.

If you by any chance read this long Il believe that you’re willing to consider new stuff. However, ones again I do not think the argument is valid. The best group of 8 coaches is very unlikely to lose a team game. Whether a specific game between 8 good and 8 bad players ends in a big or a small win is much more a matter of chance. Hence, the best group of 8 players has the best shot at winning 5-6 games in 6 rounds.

I need to point out that this has nothing to do with the actual result of this year’s tournament. Before the tournament I pointed at the English as the best team. But interestingly several of the English players also agreed that the system should be changed. I would think the majority but I am not sure about that.

Lastly Il ask this: Do you really think it should be possible for three losses and three wins to be better than six wins?

[Vigfus]

The real question really becomes what aspect of the win needs to have the largest impact on the end standings.

Does the level of the win determine who wins the tournament, or is it simply the fact that the nation result is positive than other teams?

To me it is a choice that needs to be made by the Eurobowl organizers and participants. Once there is concensus on what should have more impact, the rules should reflect that.

Now there's many discussions going on about rules, without considering this. Get a concensus on what needs to have the largest impact and then make sure the rules reflect it. The important part is to have a choice taken with the participating nations and to build the rules to it.

There will be drawbacks in any system, but if the rules focus on that part that is declared most important, they will be minor.

[Tripleskull]

The real question really becomes what aspect of the win needs to have the largest impact on the end standings.

Does the level of the win determine who wins the tournament, or is it simply the fact that the nation result is positive than other teams?

To me it is a choice that needs to be made by the Eurobowl organizers and participants. Once there is concensus on what should have more impact, the rules should reflect that.

Now there's many discussions going on about rules, without considering this. Get a concensus on what needs to have the largest impact and then make sure the rules reflect it. The important part is to have a choice taken with the participating nations and to build the rules to it.

There will be drawbacks in any system, but if the rules focus on that part that is declared most important, they will be minor.

If you go with individual wins you should abandon Swiss and go with random Draw instead.

What are the flaws of the proposal with ar without the perhaps unaesthetic 1000/500/0 part.

Im gonna go silent for a while to try not to look so much like a troll and see what you Guys figuere out.

[Joemanji]

>>Random round 1 draw, then Swiss (teams, then individuals in both cases)

I think the first round should be based on previous Eurobowl results and not be completely random to make it more fair. Then we won't have the risk of say #1 having more points than #2 just because they faced 5 good opponents and one "bad" while #2 faced 6 good opponents.

This seeding would do the opposite of what you want. If the 'big' nations play each other early, by the time round 6 arrives there will be fewer possible ties available. Then the nature of Swiss will mean someone up the top will get an easy draw just because lots of ties have already happened.

Is it better that England/Italy etc play (for example) the Freebooters in round 1 when everyone has a chance to catch up, or in round 6 where nobody can do anything about it?

The random first round draw is not a problem for me. Whatever system you create, one nation will always be perceived to have had an easy draw. If people don't like this, we need to change the scoring system so that easy draws are not rewarded.

To clarify : if there is a problem, it is that a team that gets an easy draw is rewarded twice. Once for getting the easy draw, and again by scoring a lot of points. If we decided we wanted to avoid this, the way to do so is to change the points system, not seed the first round.

Seeding the first round just means the easy games come later in the tournament. This is worse.

[jj]

Hi a small reaction . if i follow this right, the discussion is about playing the 'easy' countries and so gathering a lot of points. right?
here might be a solution : like soccer you win 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss. example : france-NL was 6,5-2,5 , 3 points for france, o for nl. Now it doesn't matter you win 8-0 or 5-3, you just win 3 points. use the points (here 6,5 for france) as tiebreakers in case of of final draw. i made a little simulation for this year. first row are the standings for this year, second row standings with the above . last column the 'change' in standings. As you can change some change : italy would have won because of 4 wins and 2 draws, engeland second 4wins 1draw and 1 loss. seeing these numbers that seems logical. Take spain for instance : the ended 6th but with the above the would have ended 12th. only two big wins and 1 draw. compare this with belgium which had 4 wins and 2 losses , still last weekend the spain ended just after spain with a little 1,5 points behind.(not very logical imo). just a little idea, any thoughts? based on info i found on a forum, some info could be wrong.

eng 36 italy 14 2
france 34,5 Eng 13 -1
italy 34 Fran 13 -1
DK 33,5 DK 13 ***
B 31 Bel 12 **
Esp 29,5 pirates 10 2
Germ 28 por 10 3
Pira 28 Suomi 9 1
SU 28 germ 9 -2
Port 28 aust 9 4
scot 27,5 scot 8 ***
sui 27 spain 7 -6
wales 25 Sui 7 -1
au 24,5 wal 7 -1
hung 22 finl 6 1
fin 22 hung 4 -1
nl 21 nl 4 ***
serb 6,5 serb 0 ***

[Mr. Nuffle]

Seeding the first round just means the easy games come later in the tournament. This is worse.

Agreed.

But how do you feel about the above suggestions regarding a change of point system.

[Loki]

Does the level of the win determine who wins the tournament, or is it simply the fact that the nation result is positive than other teams?

This also has relevance to Strongest team, i.e. a nation with 8 good players (team 1) gains from the individual results format where a team with 5 excellent players and 3 poor ones (team 2) gains from basic mat-up result i.e. when team 1 and 2 play the other teams they both win their Team match ups so but Team 1 gets more idividual wins but when the two teams play each other team 2 just wins the overall match up.

So the question could be phrased which do you want to see win: the team which has the Strongest Average or the most individually skilled players?

[phil78]

This also has relevance to Strongest team, i.e. a nation with 8 good players (team 1) gains from the individual results format where a team with 5 excellent players and 3 poor ones (team 2) gains from basic mat-up result i.e. when team 1 and 2 play the other teams they both win their Team match ups so but Team 1 gets more idividual wins but when the two teams play each other team 2 just wins the overall match up.

So the question could be phrased which do you want to see win: the team which has the Strongest Average or the most individually skilled players?

I think this was mentioned earlier but Team 2 is going to be at a disadvantage either way.
Yes, they will have less large victories but they will also have less overall team victories where nuffle screws them, i.e. their zon coach draws the opposition dwarf coach. In a team with 8 strong players you can cope better with 1 or 2 disadvantaged match ups, in a team with 5 strong coahces you'd be far more liely to lose overall ties becuase of the same 1 or 2 bad match ups, or even just a coach rolling lots of skulls.

[Darkson]

Looking in from the outside, I'd say the team result should be the most important. Not sure if 3-1-0 is right, but a team win is a team win. Individual results as a tie-breaker.

[mepmuff]

The biggest upside of the current system is that each single game can win points, so each coach is always playing to add value. This is enough for me to be content with the current scoring system.

As to the actual best way to score a team's performance, I'm of the opinion as well that 3-1-0, 2-1-0 is the best way. This should be combined with true swiss pairing using only the team points. SOS would be the first tiebreaker for the ranking.

[Tripleskull]

The biggest upside of the current system is that each single game can win points, so each coach is always playing to add value. This is enough for me to be content with the current scoring system.

As to the actual best way to score a team's performance, I'm of the opinion as well that 3-1-0, 2-1-0 is the best way. This should be combined with true swiss pairing using only the team points. SOS would be the first tiebreaker for the ranking.

In the current system all games ad point. You could actually say the same about my proposal. But why is that so important. The important thing imo is that every game in the first five rounds at least can possibly move the whole team up or down in the table. Is that not enough?

We don't need 3-1-0 because we don't need incentive to win the games. People are playing to win already its not like in football. So 2-1-0 or an equivalent system is the way to go.